WALVIS BAY – Advocate Richard Metcalfe who is part of the Walvis Bay council’s legal team, says the High Court failed to apply its mind when it granted Redforce Debt Management temporary relief in a dispute over the termination of its debt-collection contract with the municipality.

High Court acting judge Michael Mtambo temporarily stopped the municipality from implementing its decision to terminate the debt-collection contract signed by municipal officials in 2023. Redforce filed an urgent application last week when the council resolved to terminate their contract after the attorney general reportedly found it invalid.

As a result, Mtambo granted temporary relief and stopped the council from terminating the contract.

However, Metcalfe now questions the court’s decision, saying that the court failed to apply its mind.

“The court failed to apply its mind. There was no email service, which could be condoned, on the council. The deputy sheriff served it on Monday at 10h49,” Metcalfe told New Era yesterday. 

He said emails were sent to the municipality’s chief executive officer and an employee in the finance department, neither of whom is a member of the council.

Metcalfe also questioned the chief executive officer’s decision to refuse representation by the legal team appointed by the municipality.

“This rebellion by the CEO needs to be explained and investigated. The CEO takes instructions from the council. She does not give instructions because she is merely an administrative official,” he said.

He further argued that the court could not grant urgent relief based on a contract he considers illegal and null and void.

“In those circumstances there is no ground for urgency on an illegal contract. Our case law abounds with such authority,” Metcalfe said.

The municipality, in an answering affidavit deposed to by deputy mayor Miina Hangula, also challenged the urgency of the application. It said the deputy sheriff served the papers on 12 October 2026, after Redforce attempted to serve them electronically on 10 October.

Hangula argued that the council had insufficient time to prepare its opposition and that Redforce had an alternative remedy through ordinary action proceedings.

She maintained that the contract lacked the necessary authorisation from the council or management committee. The original agreement provided for a seven-month period, while an addendum extended it to five years.

According to Hangula, section 31A of the Local Authorities Act requires the chief executive officer to sign such contracts, with a co-signature from the chairperson of the management committee or an appropriately authorised council staff member.

The agreement and its amendments did not receive the required authorisation and are therefore invalid,” she stated.

Hangula further argued that the chief executive officer is an administrative official responsible for implementing council decisions and does not have independent authority to bind the municipality without the necessary authorisation.

Court order 

The court order suspends the implementation of the council resolution and the notice of immediate termination issued by the municipality.

The municipality and its officials are also restrained from withdrawing Redforce’s collection mandate, disabling its access to debtor accounts, data and systems, or transferring its existing contractual work to another service provider as part of the termination.

The municipality is further required to restore Redforce’s mandate, access to debtor accounts, data and systems, and the necessary contractual cooperation within 24 hours.

The relief does not extend the contract’s duration, authorise unlawful collection measures or prevent a lawful investigation or forensic audit.

-edeklerk@nepc.com.na